FERTILIZER INSPECTION. IO7 



men were seen who used Prentiss fertilizer only and others who 

 used Prentiss goods and other brands of high grade fertilizers. 

 There was some diversity of opinion but many of the farmers 

 claimed to have not had as good results with the Prentiss fer- 

 tilizer as with other fertilizers. Some, on the contrary, were 

 found to be satisfied with their crop. 



Without attempting to pose as an exponent of law in the mat- 

 ter, it is the writer's opinion that the redress of the farmeis is 

 limited to the deficiency in plant food ; that they are entitled to 

 a rebate of about 1-11 of the price paid per ton for the fertilizer; 

 and that they could not maintain a case against the company for 

 loss of crop due to the fertilizer. While the fertilizer was defi- 

 cient in plant food, it was not disastrously so. While in the 

 opinion of the writer, a good potato fertilizer should carry 

 nitrate nitrogen, there can be no fraud shown relative to the 

 form of nitrogen in these goods. Whatever case the user has 

 must be made on the deficiency of plant food, and the writer 

 would not know where to turn for evidence to prove that this 

 relatively small deficiency in plant food could result in any such 

 failure of crop as some of the growers seem to think to have 

 been the case. 



In the sale of fertilizers in 1907, the R. T. Prentiss Company 

 violated the Maine Fertilizer Law in three particulars. The 

 goods were not branded in the same way as their certificate 

 reads. Some of these goods were sold without being branded 

 at all. And all of the samples examined were below in one or 

 more constituents and on the average, the goods were about 9 

 per cent below their guaranty. 



The first violation was clerical in that the brand put upon the 

 barrels was printed after the certificate was filed and did not 

 carry the name Prentiss Aroostook Complete. 



It was also explained that in the case in which the goods were 

 sent out unbranded that it was due to the lack of barrels and that 

 the goods were sent out in the original bags in which they were 

 received from the factory. 



The shortage in plant food was the serious violation, but as 

 it seemed no good could be served by prosecution, as at the most 

 there could only be a small fine imposed, it was thought best to 

 depend, as in other violations of the fertilizer law, upon publicity 



